Shrawan Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Court, Barmer in Criminal Appeal No.07/2018, by which the appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 05.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Criminal Case No.7A/2014, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence under Section 411 IPC to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo one day's additional imprisonment.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that Chandan Singh A.S.I., Police Station Gudamalani submitted a written report to this effect that on 18.12.2013 at 4:00 pm, an information was received on the police station through mukhbir that Shrawan Kumar Mehlu is having a without number Bolero Camper. Upon which, he went to Mehlu village, where he saw a without numbered Bolero Camper standing there and a person was sitting in it, who started the vehicle and tried to run away after seeing the police party. On which, the vehicle was stopped and the person sitting therein was enquired. He said that his name is Shrawan Kumar S/o Chunaram Meghwal and told that he purchased the vehicle from Dinesh Kumar in a sum of Rs.80,000/-. Upon investigation about the said vehicle, it was found that the said vehicle was stolen from Mehsana on 24.09.2013 and an FIR bearing No.165 dt. 25.09.2013 under Section 379 IPC was already lodged by the owner of the vehicle, namely, Hasmukhbhai. The police registered a case and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for offence under Section 411 IPC. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed against the accused petitioner who denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. Two witnesses were examined on the defence side. No documentary evidence was produced by the accused.

After considering the material available on record, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner/accused for offence under Section 411 IPC vide order dated 05.09.2017.

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.09.2017 passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Barmer, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.03.2019. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction of the petitioner.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to challenge the finding of conviction but submits that the accused petitioner has already undergone one month and two days imprisonment out of total imprisonment of six months and also suffered mental agony and trauma since 2013, therefore, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and order passed by the courts below and submitted there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. Indisputably, the incident relates back to the year 2013 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about one month and two days imprisonment out of total six months simple imprisonment, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking at the over-all circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court for offence under Section 411 IPC i.e. six months simple imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 411, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed by the learned trial court is kept intact with default stipulation.

The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.